Barrister Julie Wright and her engagement as Supreme Court Costs Assessor
Barrister Julie Wright was contacted six times since her Supreme Court Cost Assessment, and each time, she declined to respond or take any action. Instead, her silence hampered investigations by New South Wales Bar Association and Office of Legal Services Commissioner.
Efforts to communicate with Barrister Julie Wright, which fell on her deaf ears:
- 24 May 2022
- 20 February 2024
- 21 February 2024
- 21 February 2024
- 12 June 2024
- 14 June 2024
On 14 November at attempt was also made to speak to Greenway Chambers where Barrister Julie Wright worked, but they also stayed silent. Greenway Chambers was warned that, whether by accident or intentionally, Barrister Julie Wright became an accessory to insurance fraud in NCAT case SC 20/33352. Greenway Chambers was also questioned whether their current clients or potential clients should be notified about the above.
Solicitor Adrian Mueller is an accessory to multiple crimes and Barrister Julie Wright helped him continue with such activities, causing significant financial losses to insurance company and SP52948 Lot 158. Some of examples that even layman could easily understand:
SP52948-discrepancies-between-Solicitor-Adrian-Mueller-legal-and-insurance-payments-FY-2022-and-2023
SP52948-scanned-submission-with-Statutory-Declaration-Lot-158-SCS-13/50737-18Dec2013
District-Court-case-13-360456-Lot-158-Affidavit-ignored-by-Solicitor-Adrian-Mueller-4Feb2014
SP52948-Lot-158-cost-submission-reply-ignored-by-Solicitor-Adrian-Mueller-in-Supreme-Court-27Feb2022
District-Court-case-13-360456-Lot-158-Affidavit-ignored-by-Solicitor-Adrian-Mueller-4Feb2014
Barrister Julie Wright's actions point towards serious breaches of sections 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, and 7 of Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 under the LPUL.
On her employer’s website, it states:
Julie Wright specialises in civil litigation, with a focus on complex construction and commercial disputes, advocacy, advisory work, and domestic and international arbitration. Julie is well regarded for her attention to detail, efficiency, and extensive construction law experience.
In case CA 2022/70683, Barrister Julie Wright exercised high level of bias and prejudice, and through unprofessional conduct and perceived dislike of my wife and myself, looked for all possible avenues to cause excessive costs and ignore my evidence, whilst accepting Solicitor’s files without proper verification. Lay observers would view her actions as apprehended bias.
Barrister Julia Wright failed to analyse or take into account six different versions of alleged legal costs that Solicitor Adrian Mueller allegedly incurred in NCAT case SC 20/33352:
Barrister Julia Wright ignored facts about legal costs that Solicitor Adrian Mueller allegedly incurred in NCAT case SC 20/33352, in spite of overwhelming evidence presented to her by Lot 158 in 2023 and 2024 and knowingly decided not of take any action:
Barrister Julie Wright did not comply with Supreme Court statements at:
https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/practice-procedure/costs-assessment.html
Costs Assessment quantifies amounts under costs orders made by (NSW) courts and tribunals and determines fair and reasonable costs between clients and their lawyers in light of any costs agreements and relevant requirements of legal profession legislation.
Barrister Julie Wright had a simple duty and failed to accomplish it through deliberate, premeditated efforts to discredit available evidence, and failed to seek further information from Solicitor Adrian Mueller when strong suspicions existed for his incomplete submissions.
Her costs assessment was infected by numerous errors of law (fairness and reasonableness of the amount of legal costs).
Quote by Hon T F Bathurst AC QC, who in article “Professional conduct for barristers” in 2022 stated:
Rule 4 of the Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 (NSW) states that the Rules were made in the belief that barristers owe their paramount duty to the administration of justice and must maintain high standards of professional conduct. Although other principles are set out in Rule 4, these two principles, in my view, underpin the ethical obligations of barristers and, for that matter, any legal practitioner whether acting as an advocate or otherwise.
Justice McCallum publicly stated:
Extensive media reporting of allegations of criminal conduct is not a mischief in itself. On the contrary, it is appropriate to recognise that the media play an important role in drawing attention to allegations of criminal or other misconduct and any shortcomings in the treatment of such allegations.
Let public form an opinion about qualities of Barrister Julie Wright and her role as Supreme Court Costs Assessor:
As predicted, Office of Legal Services Commissioner declined to review the case on 5 December 2024 and even suggested that an owner should initiate District Court case themselves (more litigation and costs!?):
OLSC-case-CAS017997-review-request-denied-5Dec2024
Is that surprising? Not really. OLSC never replied to these complaints that confirmed they even provided false statements in past assessments and then used them as an excuse for "repeated issues already dealt with":
